Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [Maxima] Bugs in gcl cause maxima build failures

[Raymond Toy]

>>>>> "Camm" == Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:

    Camm> Greetings!
    Camm> Raymond Toy <address@hidden> writes:

    >> >>>>> "Camm" == Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
    >> 
    Camm> Please keep the gcl-list abreast of these hacks!  Probably all need to
    Camm> find there way into gcl at some point.
    >> 
    >> With your latest changes, I don't really think there is a need for
    >> this anymore, after you fix the least-positive-normalized-single-float
    >> issue. :-)
    >> 

    Camm> OK, this is now set to the unnormalized result.  I think that's right
    Camm> from the spec.

At least for sparc and x86 which implement IEEE FP arithmetic, I don't
think this is right.  The CLHS says the normalized float must be a
normalized float.  If you make it the unnormalized one, then you're
wrong.  And the sparc and x86 have unnormalized numbers.

For the most part, it probably doesn't matter, but some numerical
algorithms expect them to be right.

I can help you get the right values, but I don't know how to tell gcl
to get the right values.

Ray